Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On 2017-04-04 08:01:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > I don't think the parallel seqscan is comparable in complexity with the > > parallel append case. Each worker there does the same kind of work, and > > if one of them

Re: [HACKERS] psql - add special variable to reflect the last query status

2017-04-04 22:05 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO : > > After some discussions about what could be useful since psql scripts now > accepts tests, this patch sets a few variables which can be used by psql > after a "front door" (i.e. actually typed by the user) query: > > -

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: recursive json_populate_record()

On 04/03/2017 05:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-03-21 14:31:08 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> On 03/21/2017 01:37 PM, David Steele wrote: >>> On 3/16/17 11:54 AM, David Steele wrote: On 2/1/17 12:53 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 6:49 AM, Tom Lane

Re: [HACKERS] Re: PATCH: pageinspect / add page_checksum and bt_page_items(bytea)

On 4/4/17 12:55 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > > As I am not seeing any response from Tomas for last 2-3 days and since > the commit-fest is coming towards end, I have planned to work on the > review comments that I had given few days back and submit the updated > patch. PFA new version of patch

Re: [HACKERS] bug in SlabAlloc / VALGRIND_MAKE_MEM_DEFINED

On 04/04/2017 10:42 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: Hi, Andres nagged to me about valgrind runs taking much longer since 9fab40ad introduced the SlabContext into reorderbuffer.c. And by "longer" I mean hours instead of minutes. After a bit of investigation I stumbled on this line in slab.c:

Re: [HACKERS] Re: PATCH: pageinspect / add page_checksum and bt_page_items(bytea)

Thanks. I planned to look into this today, but you've been faster ;-) regards Tomas On 04/04/2017 06:55 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: Hi, As I am not seeing any response from Tomas for last 2-3 days and since the commit-fest is coming towards end, I have planned to work on the review comments

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote: >> * I think that we should store this (the number of attributes), and >> use it directly when comparing, per my remarks to Tom over on that >> other thread. We should also use the free bit within >>

[HACKERS] psql - add special variable to reflect the last query status

After some discussions about what could be useful since psql scripts now accepts tests, this patch sets a few variables which can be used by psql after a "front door" (i.e. actually typed by the user) query: - RESULT_STATUS: the status of the query - ERROR: whether the query failed -

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Rahila Syed wrote: > Hello, > > Please find attached an updated patch. > Following has been accomplished in this update: > > 1. A new partition can be added after default partition if there are no > conflicting rows in default partition. >

Re: [HACKERS] Logical decoding on standby

On 2017-04-04 22:32:40 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > I'm much happier with this. I'm still fixing some issues in the tests > for 03 and tidying them up, but 03 should allow 01 and 02 to be > reviewed in their proper context now. To me this very clearly is too late for v10, and now should be moved

Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument

On 2017-03-13 18:14:07 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > From 5351b5db257cb39832647d9117465c0217e6268b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Peter Geoghegan > Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:54:31 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Avoid copying within tuplesort_gettupleslot(). s/Avoid/Allow to

[HACKERS] bug in SlabAlloc / VALGRIND_MAKE_MEM_DEFINED

Hi, Andres nagged to me about valgrind runs taking much longer since 9fab40ad introduced the SlabContext into reorderbuffer.c. And by "longer" I mean hours instead of minutes. After a bit of investigation I stumbled on this line in slab.c: VALGRIND_MAKE_MEM_DEFINED(chunk,

Re: [HACKERS] bug in SlabAlloc / VALGRIND_MAKE_MEM_DEFINED

On 2017-04-04 23:23:30 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 04/04/2017 10:42 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Andres nagged to me about valgrind runs taking much longer since > > 9fab40ad introduced the SlabContext into reorderbuffer.c. And by > > "longer" I mean hours instead of minutes. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

From: Tatsuo Ishii [mailto:is...@sraoss.co.jp] > It's too late. Someone has already moved the patch to the next CF (for > PostgreSQL 11). Yes, but this patch will be necessary by the final release of PG 10 if the libpq batch/pipelining is committed in PG 10. I marked this as ready for committer

Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows

On 2017-01-05 03:12:09 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Hagander > > For the pg_ctl changes, we're going from removing all privilieges from the > > token, to removing none. Are there any

[HACKERS] Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

Hi all, There is still one open item pending for SCRAM that has not been treated which is mentioned here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b081887e-1712-3aa4-7dbe-e012333d5...@iki.fi When doing an authentication with SASL, the server decides what is the mechanism that the client has to use.

Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Andres Freund > I don't think the errdetail is quite right - OpenProcessToken isn't really > a syscall, is it? But then it's a common pattern already in wind32_shmem.c... Yes, "Win32 API function"

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

On 2017-04-04 16:10:32 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > >> If what Tatsuo-san said to Tom is correct (i.e. each Parse/Bind/Execute > >> starts and stops the timer), then it's a concern and the patch should not > >> be ready for committer. However, the current patch is not like that -- it > >>

Re: [HACKERS] Faster methods for getting SPI results (460% improvement)

On 6 March 2017 at 05:09, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 2/28/17 9:42 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: >>> >>> >>> I'll post a plpython patch that doesn't add the output format control. >> >> >> I've attached the results of that. Unfortunately the speed improvement >> is only 27% at this point

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - allow to store select results into variables

>> Please find attached a v8 which hopefully fixes these two issues. > Looks good to me, marking as ready for committer. I have looked into this a little bit. It seems the new feature \gset doesn't work with tables having none ascii column names: $ src/bin/pgbench/pgbench -t 1 -f /tmp/f test

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

> Hm. I started to edit it, but I'm halfway coming back to my previous > view that this isn't necessarily ready. > > If a client were to to prepare a large number of prepared statements > (i.e. a lot of parse messages), this'll only start the timeout once, at > the first statement sent. It's not

[HACKERS] Outdated comments around HandleFunctionRequest

Hi, PostgresMain() has the following blurb for fastpath functions: /* * Note: we may at this point be inside an aborted * transaction. We can't throw error for that until we've

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tatsuo Ishii > Hmm. IMO, that could happen even with the current statement timeout > implementation as well. > > Or we could start/stop the timeout in exec_execute_message() only. This > could

Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows

From: Craig Ringer [mailto:craig.rin...@2ndquadrant.com] > TBH, anyone who cares about security and runs Win7 or Win2k8 or newer should > be using virtual service accounts and managed service accounts. > > https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd548356 > > > Those are more like Unix

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@anarazel.de] > Looks to me like npgsql doesn't do that either. None of libpq, pgjdbs and > npgsql doing it seems like some evidence that it's ok. And psqlODBC now uses always libpq. Now time for final decision? Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 04/04/2017 10:02 AM, Joe Conway wrote: >> On 04/04/2017 09:55 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: >>> After some discussion off-list, I've rebased and udpated the patches. >>> Please see attached for further review. >> >> Thanks --

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

> On 2017-04-04 16:56:26 -0700, 'Andres Freund' wrote: >> On 2017-04-04 23:52:28 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: >> > From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@anarazel.de] >> > > Looks to me like npgsql doesn't do that either. None of libpq, pgjdbs >> > > and >> > > npgsql doing it seems like some

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/04/2017 10:02 AM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 04/04/2017 09:55 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: >> After some discussion off-list, I've rebased and udpated the patches. >> Please see attached for further review. > > Thanks -- will have another look and test on a machine with selinux > setup. Robert,

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

On 2017-04-05 10:05:19 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > Hm. I started to edit it, but I'm halfway coming back to my previous > > view that this isn't necessarily ready. > > > > If a client were to to prepare a large number of prepared statements > > (i.e. a lot of parse messages), this'll only

Re: [HACKERS] ANALYZE command progress checker

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> Hmm, you're right. It could be counted with a separate variable >> initialized to 0 and incremented every time we decide to add a

Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> The patch presented here does lower the coverage we have now. > > I assume (perhaps

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On 27 March 2017 at 15:36, Beena Emerson wrote: > 02-increase-max-wal-segsize.patch - Increases the wal-segsize and changes > the internal representation of max_wal_size and min_wal_size to mb. Committed first part to allow internal representation change (only). No

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

Andres, >> I think the code needs a few clarifying comments around this, but >> otherwise seems good. Not restarting the timeout in those cases >> obviously isn't entirely "perfect"/"correct", but a tradeoff - the >> comments should note that. >> >> Tatsuo-san, do you want to change those, and

Re: [HACKERS] delta relations in AFTER triggers

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Thomas Munro writes: Or

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

On 2017-04-04 16:56:26 -0700, 'Andres Freund' wrote: > On 2017-04-04 23:52:28 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > > From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@anarazel.de] > > > Looks to me like npgsql doesn't do that either. None of libpq, pgjdbs and > > > npgsql doing it seems like some evidence that

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > but > try to access the TOAST table would be fatal; that probably would have > deadlock hazards among other problems. Hmm. I think you're right. We could make a copy of the heap tuple, drop the lock and then access

Re: [HACKERS] Implementation of SASLprep for SCRAM-SHA-256

On 04/04/2017 01:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 03/31/2017 10:10 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: I kinda hope Heikki is going to step

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

>> What's your point of the question? What kind of problem do you expect >> if the timeout starts only once at the first parse meesage out of >> bunch of parse messages? > > It's perfectly valid to send a lot of Parse messages without > interspersed Sync or Bind/Execute message. There'll be one

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

On 2017-04-04 23:52:28 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@anarazel.de] > > Looks to me like npgsql doesn't do that either. None of libpq, pgjdbs and > > npgsql doing it seems like some evidence that it's ok. > > And psqlODBC now uses always libpq. > > Now

Re: [HACKERS] delta relations in AFTER triggers

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Worked on the docs some more and then pushed it. > > Nice job cutting the number of *.[ch] lines by 30 while adding support for > the other three core PLs. :-) Great. Thanks. I wonder if there is some way we can

Re: [HACKERS] Speedup twophase transactions

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > OK, done. I have just noticed that Simon has marked himself as a > committer of this patch 24 hours ago. For the archive's sake, this has been committed as 728bd991. Thanks Simon! -- Michael -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Reduce src/test/recovery verbosity

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Committed, with those additions. Thanks for the commit. The final result is nice. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-04 08:01:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Andres Freund > wrote: > > > I don't think the parallel seqscan is comparable in complexity with the > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 4/3/17 11:32, Andres Freund wrote: >> That doesn't strike as particularly future proof. We intentionally >> leave objects behind pg_regress runs, but that only works if we actually >> run them... > >

Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > s/Avoid/Allow to avoid/ WFM. >> + * >> + * Callers cannot rely on memory for tuple in returned slot remaining valid >> + * past any subsequent manipulation of the sorter, such as another fetch of >> + * input from

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

On 2017-04-05 08:34:43 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > Andres, > > >> I think the code needs a few clarifying comments around this, but > >> otherwise seems good. Not restarting the timeout in those cases > >> obviously isn't entirely "perfect"/"correct", but a tradeoff - the > >> comments should

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

On 2017-04-04 16:38:53 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-04 16:10:32 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > >> If what Tatsuo-san said to Tom is correct (i.e. each Parse/Bind/Execute > > >> starts and stops the timer), then it's a concern and the patch should > > >> not be ready for committer.

Re: [HACKERS] Faster methods for getting SPI results (460% improvement)

On 5 April 2017 at 08:00, Craig Ringer wrote: > Taking a look at this now. Rebased to current master with conflicts and whitespace errors fixed. Review pending. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support,

Re: [HACKERS] Faster methods for getting SPI results (460% improvement)

On 5 April 2017 at 08:23, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 5 April 2017 at 08:00, Craig Ringer wrote: > >> Taking a look at this now. > > Rebased to current master with conflicts and whitespace errors fixed. > Review pending. This patch fails to update the

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Pavan Deolasee > wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > >> but > >> try to access the TOAST table would be

Re: [HACKERS] BRIN cost estimate

On 3 April 2017 at 03:05, Emre Hasegeli wrote: > Unfortunately, I am on vacation for two weeks without my computer. I can > post another version after 18th. I know we are under time pressure for > release. I wouldn't mind if you or Alvaro would change it anyway you like.

Re: [HACKERS] Compiler warning in costsize.c

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> In builds where USE_ASSERT_CHECKING is not enabled, costsize.c can >> generate warnings. Here is for example with MSVC: >> src/backend/optimizer/path/costsize.c(4520):

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >> Any objections? > I'm guessing Tom's going to have a strong feeling about whether 0001a > is the right way to address the stdbool issue, I will? [ looks ... ] Yup, you're

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

>> What do you think? I've not really tested this with the extended protocol, >> so I'd appreciate if you could rerun your test from the older thread. > > The patch looks good and cleaner. It looks like the code works as expected. > As before, I ran one INSERT statement with PgJDBC, with

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics (v25)

At Tue, 4 Apr 2017 20:19:39 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote in <56f40b20-c464-fad2-ff39-06b668fac...@2ndquadrant.com> > On 04/04/2017 09:55 AM, David Rowley wrote: > > On 1 April 2017 at 04:25, David Rowley > > wrote: > >> I've attached an

Re: [HACKERS] identity columns

On 4/3/17, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 3/30/17 22:57, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: >> Why do you still want to leave "ADD IF NOT EXISTS" instead of using >> "SET IF NOT EXISTS"? >> If someone wants to follow the standard he can simply not to use "IF >> NOT EXISTS" at

Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows

On 5 April 2017 at 10:37, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > Good point! And I said earlier in this thread, I think managing privileges > (adding/revoking privileges from the user account) is the DBA's or sysadmin's > duty, and PG's removing all privileges feels

Re: [HACKERS] BRIN cost estimate

> Interested to hear comments on this. I don't have chance to test it right now, but I am sure it would be an improvement over what we have right now. There is no single correct equation with so many unknowns we have. > *indexTotalCost += (numTuples * *indexSelectivity) *

Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows

From: Craig Ringer [mailto:craig.rin...@2ndquadrant.com] > On 5 April 2017 at 10:37, Tsunakawa, Takayuki > wrote: > > OTOH, I tried again to leave the DISABLE_MAX_PRIVILEGE as is and add Lock > Pages in Memory, using the attached pg_ctl.c. Please see >

Re: [HACKERS] Implementation of SASLprep for SCRAM-SHA-256

fore On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I will continue tomorrow, but I wanted to report on what I've done so far. > Attached is a new patch version, quite heavily modified. Notable changes so > far: Great, thanks! > * Use Unicode codepoints, rather

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-04-05 10:05:19 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> What's your point of the question? What kind of problem do you expect >> if the timeout starts only once at the first parse meesage out of >> bunch of parse messages? > It's perfectly valid to send a

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 4/5/17 00:58, Tom Lane wrote: >> Another issue is whether you won't get compiler complaints about >> redefinition of the "true" and "false" macros. But those would >> likely only be warnings, not flat-out errors. > The complaint

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

On 2017/04/05 6:22, Keith Fiske wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Rahila Syed wrote: >> Please find attached an updated patch. >> Following has been accomplished in this update: >> >> 1. A new partition can be added after default partition if there are no >> conflicting rows in default

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/04/05 6:22, Keith Fiske wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Rahila Syed wrote: > >> Please find attached an updated patch. > >> Following has been accomplished in this update: > >> > >> 1. A new

Re: [HACKERS] ANALYZE command progress checker

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/03/30 17:39, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:38 PM, vinayak wrote: > I have updated the patch. >> >> I reviewed v7 patch. >> >> When I ran ANALYZE command to the table having 5

Re: [HACKERS] strange parallel query behavior after OOM crashes

Looking further in this context, number of active parallel workers is: parallel_register_count - parallel_terminate_count Can active workers ever be greater than max_parallel_workers, I think no. Then why should there be greater than check in the following condition: if (parallel &&

Re: [HACKERS] Refactoring identifier checks to consistently use strcmp

> On 04 Apr 2017, at 05:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> Testing DefElem options is done with both strcmp() and pg_strcasecmp() a bit >> mixed. Since the option defnames are all lowercased, either via IDENT, >> keyword >> rules or “by hand”

Re: [HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

Hello Pavel, The expression evaluation is interesting question, but there is a workaround - we can use \gset already. Yes, that is a good point. It is a little bit inconvenient because it requires a dummy variable name each time for testing. SELECT whatever AS somename \gset \if

[HACKERS] proposal: Introduction a commontype as new polymorphic type

Hi I am still little bit unhappy with missing functionality in our generic types. If I write function fx(anyelement, anyelement) returns anyelement postgres=# create or replace function fx(anyelement, anyelement) returns anyelement as $$ select greather($1,$2) $$ language sql; CREATE FUNCTION

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

On 2017-04-04 06:18:04 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: Tatsuo Ishii [mailto:is...@sraoss.co.jp] > > It's too late. Someone has already moved the patch to the next CF (for > > PostgreSQL 11). > > Yes, but this patch will be necessary by the final release of PG 10 if the > libpq

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@anarazel.de] Given the concern raised in > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/12207.1491228316%40sss.pgh.p > a.us > I don't see this being ready for committer. If what Tatsuo-san said to Tom is correct (i.e. each Parse/Bind/Execute starts and stops the

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

>> If what Tatsuo-san said to Tom is correct (i.e. each Parse/Bind/Execute >> starts and stops the timer), then it's a concern and the patch should not be >> ready for committer. However, the current patch is not like that -- it >> seems to do what others in this thread are expecting. > > Oh,

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics (v25)

On 1 April 2017 at 04:25, David Rowley wrote: > I've attached an updated patch. I've made another pass at this and ended up removing the tryextstats variable. We now only try to use extended statistics when clauselist_selectivity() is given a valid RelOptInfo with

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

On 2017-04-04 06:35:00 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@anarazel.de] > Given the concern raised in > > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/12207.1491228316%40sss.pgh.p > > a.us > > I don't see this being ready for committer. > > If what Tatsuo-san said

Re: [HACKERS] Some never executed code regarding the table sync worker

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hi, > > At Sat, 1 Apr 2017 02:35:00 +0900, Masahiko Sawada > wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On 4 April 2017 at 01:47, Andres Freund wrote: >> +typedef struct ParallelAppendDescData >> +{ >> + LWLock pa_lock;/* mutual exclusion to choose >> next subplan */ >> + int pa_first_plan; /* plan to choose while >>

Re: [HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

2017-04-04 9:53 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO : > > Hello Pavel, > > The expression evaluation is interesting question, but there is a >> workaround - we can use \gset already. >> > > Yes, that is a good point. It is a little bit inconvenient because it > requires a dummy variable

Re: [HACKERS] ANALYZE command progress checker

On 2017/04/04 15:30, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> We can report progress in terms of individual blocks only inside >> acquire_sample_rows(), which seems undesirable when one thinks that we >> will be resetting the target for every child table. We should have a >> global target that considers all

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

On 2017/04/04 14:38, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: Probably we should use "could not be created" instead of "was not created" in "... a local path suitable for EPQ checks was not created". Done. "outer_path should not require relations from inner_path" may be reworded as "outer paths should not be

Re: [HACKERS] Some never executed code regarding the table sync worker

Hi, At Sat, 1 Apr 2017 02:35:00 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Compiler warning in costsize.c

On 4 April 2017 at 16:22, Michael Paquier wrote: > Hi all, > > In builds where USE_ASSERT_CHECKING is not enabled, costsize.c can > generate warnings. Here is for example with MSVC: > src/backend/optimizer/path/costsize.c(4520): warning C4101: 'rte' : > unreferen >

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

01.04.2017 02:31, Peter Geoghegan: * index_truncate_tuple() should have as an argument the number of attributes. No need to "#include utils/rel.h" that way. Will fix. * I think that we should store this (the number of attributes), and use it directly when comparing, per my remarks to Tom

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

> On 4 Apr 2017, at 04:23, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > > I reviewed this patch but when I tried to build contrib/test_decoding > I got the following error. > Thanks! Yes, seems that 18ce3a4a changed ProcessUtility_hook signature. Updated. > There are still some

[HACKERS] Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan - Prefetch pages are not updated properly

While analyzing the coverage for the prefetching part, I found an issue that prefetch_pages were not updated properly while executing in parallel mode. Attached patch fixes the same. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com parallel_bitmap_prefetch_fix.patch

Re: [HACKERS] Page Scan Mode in Hash Index

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > > Please note that these patches needs to be applied on top of [1]. > Few more review comments: 1. - page = BufferGetPage(so->hashso_curbuf); + blkno = so->currPos.currPage; + if (so->hashso_bucket_buf ==

Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous execution

Hello, At Sun, 2 Apr 2017 12:21:14 -0400, Corey Huinker wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Page Scan Mode in Hash Index

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > > My guess (which could be wrong) is that so->hashso_bucket_buf = >> InvalidBuffer should be moved back up higher in the function where it >> was before, just after the first if statement, and that the new >>

Re: [HACKERS] FDW and parallel execution

Hi, At Sun, 02 Apr 2017 16:30:24 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote in <58e0fcf0.2070...@postgrespro.ru> > Hi hackers and personally Robet (you are the best expert in both > areas). > I want to ask one more question concerning parallel execution and FDW. > Below are two

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On 3 April 2017 at 17:13, Amit Langote wrote: > Hi Amit, > > Thanks for updating the patch. Since ddl.sgml got updated on Saturday, > patch needs a rebase. Rebased now. > >> On 31 March 2017 at 16:54, Amit Khandekar wrote: >>> On 31 March

Re: [HACKERS] wait event documentation

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > By the way, wonder if it wouldn't make sense to take the whole Table 28.1. > Dynamic Statistics Views into a new section (perhaps before 28.2 Viewing > Locks or after), since those views display information

Re: [HACKERS] Implementation of SASLprep for SCRAM-SHA-256

On 03/31/2017 10:10 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: I kinda hope Heikki is going to step up to the plate here, because I think he

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

On 4 April 2017 at 13:35, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:52 PM, David Rowley >> wrote: One last observation: +/* +

Re: [HACKERS] Compiler warning in costsize.c

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:03 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 4 April 2017 at 16:22, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> In builds where USE_ASSERT_CHECKING is not enabled, costsize.c can >> generate warnings. Here is for example with MSVC:

Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows

On 4 Apr. 2017 14:22, "Andres Freund" wrote: On 2017-01-05 03:12:09 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Hagander > > For the pg_ctl changes, we're going from removing

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] A better way to expand hash indexes.

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > Committed. Thanks Robert, And also sorry, one unfortunate thing happened in the last patch while fixing one of the review comments a variable disappeared from the equation @_hash_spareindex. splitpoint_phases

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] A better way to expand hash indexes.

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:33 AM, Mithun Cy wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Committed. > > Thanks Robert, > > And also sorry, one unfortunate thing happened in the last patch while > fixing one of the review comments

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > I don't think the parallel seqscan is comparable in complexity with the > parallel append case. Each worker there does the same kind of work, and > if one of them is behind, it'll just do less. But correct sizing will >

Re: [HACKERS] show "aggressive" or not in autovacuum logs

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello, > > At Fri, 31 Mar 2017 18:20:23 +0900, Masahiko Sawada > wrote in >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:46 PM,

Re: [HACKERS] Page Scan Mode in Hash Index

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Ashutosh Sharma > wrote: >> My guess (which could be wrong) is that so->hashso_bucket_buf = >>> InvalidBuffer should be moved back up higher in the function

Re: [HACKERS] wait event documentation

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> By the way, wonder if it wouldn't make sense to take the whole Table 28.1. >> Dynamic Statistics Views into a new section (perhaps

  1   2   >